sitebay_update_site

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., downtime), rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions a return confirmation but doesn't describe format or success/failure indicators.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by categorized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters or outcomes. It could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral details, but overall it's efficient and avoids redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of annotations, the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more guidance on usage and risks would improve completeness for a tool of this nature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear, concise explanations for all 7 parameters. Each parameter is listed with its purpose (e.g., 'Change the site domain' for new_fqdn, 'Toggle free plan flag' for is_free), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This is crucial given the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing SiteBay site configuration', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'sitebay_create_site' (creation) and 'sitebay_delete_site' (deletion), establishing its role in modifying existing sites rather than creating or removing them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing site), exclusions (e.g., not for new sites), or comparisons to siblings like 'sitebay_get_site' (for viewing) or 'sitebay_site_edit_file' (for file-level edits). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.